In United States ex rel. Feliciano v. Ardoin, a pro se relator filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (“FCA”). On February 4, 2025, the D.C. Court of Appeals (the “Court”) affirmed a district court’s dismissal ruling that a pro se litigant cannot allege violations of the FCA. In doing so, the Court joined every other court of appeals to have addressed the question.
Background
The FCA, codified at 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733, empowers private individuals, known as relators, to bring qui tam lawsuits on behalf of the U.S. government for false or fraudulent claims submitted for federal reimbursement. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1654, parties may conduct “their own cases” pro se, but non-attorneys cannot appear pro se and seek to represent others. Because FCA relators pursue the government’s claims, several circuits have determined this precludes relators from proceeding pro se.
In 2023, Dañilo Augusto Feliciano (the “Relator”) filed a qui tam action alleging the government was defrauded by the State of Louisiana after it submitted false statements to receive federal funds for use in the administration of its elections. The government declined to intervene and, in a filing with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, further reasoned that the Relator could not pursue the action without licensed counsel. In July of 2024, the district court dismissed the case, prompting the Relator to file a notice of appeal.
The Pro Se Rule
The Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal ruling that a pro se litigant cannot allege violations of the FCA. In doing so, the Court joined every other court of appeals to have addressed the question.
The Court’s reasoning was straightforward: FCA claims belong to the government, not the relator. The FCA contains no exceptions to this background rule. Relators must have qualified counsel to ensure that “the real party at interest, the United States, is adequately represented.” U.S. ex rel. Rockefeller v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., 274 F. Supp. 2d 10, 16 (D.D.C. 2003). That is, in order to prevent a pro se litigant from binding the government to an adverse judgment, relators must have competent counsel to aid in litigating the matter. Moreover, the background rule is designed to allow the “better-equipped” party to pursue the claim – and because only one person can bring a qui tam action under the FCA on a particular set of underlying facts, preventing pro se relators ensures the proper adjudication of meritorious claims.
In their holding, the Court joined every other court of appeals to have addressed whether a pro se relator can bring claims under the FCA:
- Wojcicki v. SCANA/SCE&G, 947 F.3d 240, 244 (4th Cir. 2020);
- S. ex rel. Brooks v. Ormsby, 869 F.3d 356, 357 (5th Cir. 2017);
- S. ex rel. Mergent Servs. v. Flaherty, 540 F.3d 89, 92-94 (2d Cir. 2008);
- Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 873-74 (11th Cir. 2008);
- Stoner v. Santa Clara Cnty. Off. of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 1125-28 (9th Cir. 2007);
- S. ex rel. Lu v. Ou, 368 F.3d 773, 775-76 (7th Cir. 2004); and
- United States v. Onan, 190 F.2d 1, 6 (8th Cir. 1951).
Practical Takeaways
- The FCA Prohibits Pro Se Litigants from Pursuing Claims: FCA relators now must have adequate legal counsel to pursue the government’s claims in the D.C. Circuit.
If you have questions or would like more information about this topic, please contact:
- David Honig at (317) 977-1447 or dhonig@hallrender.com;
- Kennedy Bunch at (317) 977-1420 or kbunch@hallrender.com; or
- Your primary Hall Render contact.
Hall Render blog posts and articles are intended for informational purposes only. For ethical reasons, Hall Render attorneys cannot—outside of an attorney-client relationship—answer specific questions that would be legal advice.
